Background/Objective: Eradication of Helicobacter pylori typically uses acid-suppressing agents plus antimicrobials, but treatment failure may reach 20–30%. Adjunctive rebamipide has been proposed as a strategy to improve treatment outcomes. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of first-line empirical therapy when rebamipide was added to eradication regimens. Methods: Treatment-naïve patient data were collected between January 2020 and August 2024 from the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori Management (Hp-EuReg), an international, prospective, multicentre, observational study. Rebamipide-containing regimens were analysed and compared with those without rebamipide. Effectiveness was assessed using a modified intention-to-treat approach. Results: Overall, 4581 patients (mean age 48 ± 15 years, 64% women) from 15 Russian cities were included. From those, 820 patients received eradication therapy with rebamipide and 3761 without rebamipide. Overall effectiveness was significantly higher with rebamipide (731/763, 96%) than without it (2785/3059, 91%) (p = 0.0002). Rebamipide-containing triple therapy consisting of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI), clarithromycin and amoxicillin was associated with effectiveness above 90%, while rebamipide-containing quadruple therapy consisting of a PPI, clarithromycin, amoxicillin and bismuth yielded a 97% eradication rate, compared with 79% and 95%, respectively, without rebamipide (p < 0.001). Adverse events were significantly more frequent in patients receiving rebamipide-containing regimens (46% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001), though none were serious or caused discontinuation. Compliance was similar in both groups (99% vs. 98.5%; p > 0.05). Conclusions: In this observational registry cohort, first-line empirical triple therapy with amoxicillin–clarithromycin, and quadruple therapy with amoxicillin–clarithromycin–bismuth, both prescribed with rebamipide, were associated with higher eradication rates than regimens without rebamipide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bordin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: